Scanning

<p>I recently bought an Epson v370 and all my scans of negs seem to be OOF. (See this post on my blog: http://danhillphotography.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/my-exploration-into-medium-format-and-scanning/ ) I was just wondering how you guys scan your 120 negs and seek any advice off you on how to improve mine, and my photography. Thanks in advance.<br>

Dan<br>

www.danhillphotography.wordpress.com</p>

<p>1. your scanner is designed for 35mm only via the transparency adapter. upgrade to a V500 at minimum, they can be had for the same price you paid for the 370 in the clearance center refurbished.<br>

2. scan no higher than the optical resolution which is 4800dpi.<br>

3. digital ice does not work with B&W film, turn it off.<br>

4. turn filters and sharpening off.<br>

5. go to the digital darkroom section of this site and read the posts on scanning.</p>

<p>Do not expect to get good results from a scanner that costs $99.00 and is a flatbed scanner.<br>

For good results you would need a dedicated film scanner.</p>

<p>Looking at the manual for your scanner, it seems to me that if the scanner can see both the mounted-slide area of it's holder, and the 35-mm-strip part, it can surely cover a medium format strip, if you can just get the film mounted at the correct distance from the glass.</p>

<p>In your blog post, you mention the 'convex' way your film sits in the scanner; that sounds like you aren't holding the film in a holder. I use an old Epson flatbed, and I find my scans are quite good enough for what I need, but you really do need to hold the film flat; the scanner has quite a narrow depth of focus. Try to fix this with your existing scanner, and see if your scans are good enough for what you want, before being persuaded to buy another machine.</p>

<p>I use 127 film, and quarter-plate, as well as 'normal' sizes. My scanner came with holders for 35 mm, mounted slides, 120 roll film, and 4x5 inch; some people criticise Epson's film holders, but I get by with them. For my irregular sizes, my 'film holders' are simple 'cardboard sandwiches' that I made myself. I chose the card from what I had that was closest to the same thickness as the bottom part of Epson's plastic film-holders (the holders for my scanner simply sit on the bottom glass, so this would leave the film at the correct distance above the glass). I cut the card as neatly as I could using a scalpel or craft knife (so as to get edges without stray fibres). Not rocket science at all. Some of my film curls up, especially in hot, dry weather; this defeats Epson's holders too, but I have attached some lead discs to one of my holders to make the top part heavier. I have a cunning plan to one day make new holders out of that thin, flexible fridge-magnet material.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Scanner: Epson V500<br>

mode: PSCS2 import, Epson scan pro mode, default exposure settings, unsharp mask off, 3200dpi.<br>

Camera: Graflex RB Series B, 2x3 format, Graflex 22 RFH. 1/1000 f16.<br>

Film: T Max 400 @ EI 320, processed in HC 110, dilution H, 12 minutes @ 68°F</p>

<p> Posted image unedited copy auto reduced to 133 lines per inch, best quality in CS2.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Scanner: Epson V500<br /> mode: PSCS2 import, Epson scan pro mode, default exposure settings, unsharp mask off, 3200dpi.<br /> Camera: Graflex RB Series B, 2x3 format, Graflex 22 RFH. 1/500 f22.<br /> Film: T Max 400 @ EI 320, processed in HC 110, dilution H, 12 minutes @ 68°F<br>

Posted image unedited copy auto reduced to 133 lines per inch, best quality in CS2.</p>

<div></div>

Cheers for the help and advice guys. I did

realise it was 35mm but I didn't have the

cash for anything more expensive. Ill try

some of the tips I have recieved and let you

all know the results in due course!

Cheers

Dan

www.danhillphotography.wordpress.com

<p>I like using the Lomography negative holders for scanning. They seem to do a better job than the Epson holders at keeping the film flat. They come in both 120 and 35mm sizes.</p>

<p>http://shop.lomography.com/us/digitaliza-120-scanning-mask</p>

<p>The above photos were exposed and processed on 2-20-14 and scanned today, 2-21-14. Exposure is off <1/2, part of a camera test.<br>

I scan B&W as 48 bit color.<br>

This image is a 100% crop, converted from 16 bit to 8 bit as the only change.</p><div></div>

I thought that CCD scanners had a lot

of focus depth? Anyway, this may be of

interest:

http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-

forum/00Zdeb

I will shoot more MF in future, and I

intend to buy a CCD scanner (Epson)

to use with Lomography Digitalizas, as

referenced above by David.

<p>Mr. Hill...</p>

<p>The Epson flatbeds that I have tested, in transparency mode, with an Edmond Scientific USAF1951 glass test target all max out in real resolution in the 2200-2400PPI range. Yes, even without “interpolation” the output is 4800PPI to 6400PPI but the information is limited to 2200-2400PPI. It is like using a high resolution film such as T-MAX 100, but also using a cheap plastic lens. A great lens may put 100LP/mm on the film but a cheap plastic lens may only get you 25LP/mm of information. The exposure size on the film is the same in both cases. </p>

<p>Additionally, have you checked the resolution of the image? Those one-time use drug store cameras can only put about 750-1000PPI equivalent information on the 800 speed film inside through their cheap lens. A medium format box camera produces about the same resolution even if you use Velvia or T_MAX. Scanning at a higher REAL resolution than is on the film only adds to file size. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>The Graflex 2x3 Series B, http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Graflex_reflex_models, is a waist level SLR. I was shooting hand held. I focused at f4.5, moved the camera and set the aperture, then recomposed. The negatives are equally soft but an 8x10 from the 290mb file will OK at 1 foot viewing distance or further. </p>

<p>Someone want to donate a drum scanner to me? </p>

<p>I can't donate a drum scanner to you but can help you scan some of your best captures on the Hasselblad Flextight X5. A 6x6 scanned at 3200 PPI renders a 7,000x7,000 Pixels file.<br>

<a href="http://www.scanningfilm.com">www.scanningfilm.com</a></p>